Anda di halaman 1dari 11
 
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 13-2000EVAN ARDENTE,Plaintiff, Appellee,v. THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,Defendant, Appellant.APPEAL FROMTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND[Hon. WilliamE. Smith, U.S. District Judge]Before Torruella, Circuit Judge,Souter,
*
 Associate Justice,and Selya, Circuit Judge.Daniel F. Sullivan, with whomWystan M. Ackerman, Dana M.Horton and Robinson & Cole LLP, were on brief for appellant.Kurt T. Kalberer II, with whomChristopher E. Hultquist andDarrowEverett, LLP, were on brief for appellee.March 12, 2014
*
 Hon. David H. Souter, Associate Justice (Ret.) of the SupremeCourt of the United States, sitting by designation.
 
TORRUELLA, Circuit Judge.
 Standard Fire InsuranceCompany appeals froma district court order awarding Evan Ardentesummary judgment on his claimfor breach of a yacht insurancepolicy. Because the policy does not cover the type of damagesustained by Ardente's yacht, we reverse.
I. Background 
Standard Fire insured Ardente's yacht. At some pointafter purchasing the boat, Ardente noticed that its top speed haddecreased and that it was not navigating properly. The partiesagree that these were symptoms of water damage to the yacht's hull. They also agree about how water was getting into the hull. Aship's hull has holes for the installation of fixtures, such asport lights. Normally, the material surrounding these so-called"installation holes" is solid laminate, which is waterproof. Butin Ardente's yacht, the installation holes are surrounded by balsawood, which is not waterproof. Water seeping into the balsa woodaround the installation holes then spread throughout the hull.Ardente presented a claimto Standard Fire, which deniedcoverage on the ground that the claimfell within an exclusion formanufacturing defects. Ardente sued in state court, alleging,among other claims, breach of contract, whereafter Standard Fireremoved the case to federal court. The parties then filed crossmotions for summary judgment.
-2-
 
 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Standard Fire on all of Ardente's claims except for the breach ocontract allegation. Ardente v. Standard Fire Ins. Co., 906 F.Supp. 2d 22 (D.R.I. 2012). On that claim, the district courtgranted Ardente summary judgment with respect to liability,interpreting the policy in such a way that the damage fell withinan exception to the exclusion for manufacturing defects. The issueof damages was reserved for trial, but the parties reached astipulation with respect to damages, and the district court entered judgment. Standard Fire appealed.
II. Discussion
We review de novo both the district court's grant osummary judgment and its interpretation of the insurance policy.Penn-Am. Ins. Co. v. Lavigne, 617 F.3d 82, 84 (1st Cir. 2010).Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in thelight most favorable to the nonmovant, reveals no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as amatter of law. See id. This case presents no factual issues andasks only whether Ardente's loss is covered by the policy, a legalquestion properly resolved by summary judgment. See Littlefield v.Acadia Ins. Co., 392 F.3d 1, 6 (1st Cir. 2004). The parties agree that Rhode Island law governs theinterpretation of the policy. Under Rhode Island law, if the termsof an insurance policy are unambiguous, there is no further need
-3-

Puaskan Keingintahuan Anda

Segala yang ingin Anda baca.
Kapan pun. Di mana pun. Perangkat apa pun.
Tanpa Komitmen. Batalkan kapan saja.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505